The argument goes, as one's wealth grows, your capability to prevent harm, suffering, and other general bad things in the world grows as well.

There exists some point beyond which your wealth is so large, your ability to prevent harm so large, and the impact of doing so on yourself so small, that continued wealth accumulation beyond that point indicates a lack of integrity.

Where that line exists is of course debatable. "A billion dollars" is usually referenced because it's such a large value that it's easily over the line.

▲

terminalshort 3 days ago | parent [-]

I am extremely averse to arguments that place a moral obligation on another person which does not apply equally to the person making the argument. If it is immoral for Jeff Bezos to buy a yacht when he could have given that money to charity, then it is also immoral for me to spend $10K on a ski vacation because that is no more necessary to me than a yacht is to Jeff Bezos.

Furthermore, I object to the concept that money spent on consumption is any worse than money spent on charity. That money I spent skiing goes to plenty of worthwhile economic activity and people's salaries just as Jeff Bezos yacht money goes to pay the boat builders and crew. The only difference between that and charity is emotional impact and the fact that a charitable donation doesn't inspire envy in others like a yacht does.

▲

margalabargala 2 days ago | parent [-]

> The only difference between that and charity is emotional impact and the fact that a charitable donation doesn't inspire envy in others like a yacht does.

Well, okay, sure, I guess you can make an argument that "we're all atoms and therefore there is no morality and therefore buying a third yacht and helping pay for a 4-year-one's cancer treatment are equally good and moral".

> it is also immoral for me to spend $10K on a ski vacation because that is no more necessary to me than a yacht is to Jeff Bezos.

My argument rests on the impact to the giver's life. So yes I agree that if the marginal impact to your quality of life of $10k on a ski vacation is equal to Jeff Bezos buying a yacht, sure, that's immoral. Just how it would be immoral for people far less wealthy than yourself to decline to share, say, $0.10 if it would have a real impact on something.

The difference is of course then that $10k has much more impact than $0.10, and the price of a yacht much more than your $10k.

And if you have the ability to spend $10k and have the zero impact on your life that Jeff Bezos experiences when he buys a yacht with billions are left over, then you too are standing by as children die of cancer.

▲

terminalshort 2 days ago | parent [-]

Forgoing a $10 million yacht would have 1000x the impact of my ski trip, but if 1000x as many people can afford a $10K vacation, the impact is equal across society. And yes, I do stand by as children die of cancer, just the same as you do.

	▲	margalabargala 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		You're still missing the point. It appears you're arguing against a commonly made argument that is not the one I am making. I can afford a $1k ski trip if I plan and budget for it. You can apparently do the same for a $10k trip. Jeff Bezos does not need to do that for a yacht. It makes no difference to his quality of life, his ability to feed, house, or care for himself. When someone has so much in excess of what they will ever need, then failing to use what they do have for good, that makes them a bad person. Choosing to plan and budget for a $10k ski trip instead of charity does not put you in that bucket. If you were instead able to make a $10k ski trip, each weekend November to April, each year, on a whim without thinking of finances, and did not donate to charity, then that would make you a bad person. It's not "did you theoretically have the ability to help the child with cancer", it's "did you have that ability with essentially no downside to yourself". If you can take a $10k ski trip, and donate literally $0 each year, then you're a bad person.